MUHAMMAD ILYAS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

JUSTICE ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (MEMBER).‑‑‑ The appellant through this appeal filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 seeks expunction of the following adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1974:‑

"The officer lives beyond known means and has a bad reputation."

These remarks, it may be stated, were added by the High Court as counter signing Authority.

2. The appellant was posted as a Civil Judge in Sialkot in the year 1974. His ACR for that year was initiated by the District and Sessions Judge who did not record any adverse remarks therein. He in fact rated the appellant's integrity, both moral and intellectual as `Good' (A) and endorsed the column relating to the standard of living which stated "lives within known means of income". Not only that, the Reporting Officer when giving the pen‑picture of the appellant portrayed him as "A capable and religious minded officer. Lives like a hermit and works like 'it horse. Never allows anybody to influence his judgments. ***". Subsequently, however, the same District and Sessions Judge is shown to have verbally told Mr. Justice Muhammad Siddique, the learned Judge Incharge of the Sessions Division that the appellant lived beyond known means and had a bad reputation: As a result of this oral communication, the impugned remarks were added in the ACR of the appellant on 15‑5‑1976. The appellant made a representation but with no better result as the same was rejected.

3. We have heard the submissions of both the sides and also perused the relevant record produced before us. In our view, the impugned adverse remarks had no valid and acceptable basis. The oral communication of the District and Sessions Judge which formed the sole basis for the adverse remarks added by the Countersigning Authority was totally belied' by the afore noted formal and solemn assessment which the district Judge as the Reporting Officer had made of the appellant's integrity, moral character, lifestyle and overall conduct. Needless to observe that there was no other material available with the Countersigning Authority, at least none was referred to in support of the impugned remarks. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no complaint ever made against his integrity or reputation nor was there any allegation that he was living beyond his means. Learned counsel for the respondents could not refer to any material on the record to controvert this submission. We also find that no adverse comment was ever made on the integrity and reputation of the appellant in any of the Confidential Reports from 1967, the year of his joining the judicial service, pto 1973. It may pertinently be stated that the integrity of the appellant was rated "Good" for the years 1969,1970 and 1972 and "Very Good" for the year 1971 and all along from 1967 to 1973 he was reported to be living within known means of income. An officer with this service record against whom not even a single complaint of dishonesty was received for seven long years did not deserve the impugned remarks assigned to him. It has also been noticed that the confidential record of the appellant from 1976 onwards also speaks well of his integrity and reputation.

In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that there was no valid justification or reasonable basis for the impugned remarks which we hereby order to be expunged from the appellant's ACR for the year 1974. This appeal is accordingly allowed.

A.A./2/PSJST Appeal accepted.